MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215408146 · doi:10.25336/p6bc99

Does It Pay to Migrate? The Canadian Evidence

2008· article· en· W2215408146 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Young-Deok Shin, Bali Ram

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusGeographySocioeconomicsDemographic economicsDemographyPopulationEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of the 1991 and 1996 Census data indicated that on average people who moved out of economically less affluent provinces showed higher incomes than those who were left behind. However, persons who moved out of wealthier provinces did not do as well as those who stayed. In fact, their incomes were lower than non-migrants. According to the 1996 Census, for example, the age-education adjusted income of migrants from Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia was about 10 to 13% lower than non-migrants in those provinces, whereas the corresponding income was about 7 to 13% higher for migrants from Atlantic Provinces. Similarly, people who moved into economically less resourceful provinces had higher incomes than non-migrants, while inmigrants into affluent provinces did worse than those who stayed in those provinces.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207